Monday, October 09, 2017

Love and free will

A Christian correspondent sent me the following meditation

Love for others that respects their freewill or autonomy is a giving love. It is true love. But love for others that does not respect or accept their freewill becomes a controlling and oppressive love. It is false love.

For love to be love, it must be for freewill and for freewill’s potential to learn. If you do not love someone's freewill, then you do not love them at all, for freewill is what they are. Without being for freewill, it is not love, it becomes needy, domination, oppression of another. We see this with some parents, often a mother. The parent professes to love their adult offspring and continue to manipulate and control them because they don't love their offspring's freewill.

Also dominant spouses who oppress, control the other, or each other, because they think they love each other but they don't appreciate each other’s freewill.

Also, socialists and their regimes who profess to be caring and to love their own people, but because they don't love people's freewill/freedom/autonomy they oppress them and call it caring.

If you don't love someone's freewill, then you don't love them at all, because freewill is what they are. We are freewill with potential to learn and grow from the use and consequences of our freewill and free intellect, and true love does not oppress another’s freewill but serves freewill and is for freewill. It is the heartfelt wishing well for others in their freedom and their learning and growing. And love includes understanding of freewill making mistakes, therefor it is forgiving (is love regardless).

Leftist caring has no respect for individual freewill/autonomy. Therefore their caring for others is always oppressive and stifling of individual freedom.

On Friday's broadcast of Real Time on HBO, host Bill Maher began his 'New Rules' rant against over-regulation by denouncing a bill called the 'Hot Cars Act of 2017' proposed by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) (and supported by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) in the House) that would make it mandatory for car companies to install an alert system in vehicles that children are in the car.

"Here's where someone says, 'but if it saves one life.' Oh fuck, you can put kids in bubble wrap all day and it would save some. But would it be worth it? We're never going to get this down to zero until we get rid of kids altogether," Maher complained.

"Until then all this will accomplish is to feed into the Republican message that Democrats don't want to help people they just want to micromanage their lives," Maher said. "It makes people hate us. It makes me hate us. And it prompts kickback."

"That's how you get an Environment Protection Agency headed by a man who cares nothing about environmental protection," he added.

"No one is for leaving babies in hot cars," the HBO host said. "Common sense tells most people this is an issue of personal responsibility. Especially when the liberal solution to your human frailty is me paying for more shit that can break in my car. Thanks, government. We'll get to gun control later. And that's the point. We do need regulation."

"For big things, real things like guns, and carbon emissions, and banks. But when Democrats get to regulating everything, regulation itself gets a bad name," he added.

"I don't want to let the right-wing own freedom," Maher said. "People want to drain the swamp, not ban Big Gulps. Yes, I understand, you have a thousand good ideas for how I should live my life, check my privilege and sort my recycling. I will get to that. But first we need to get some Democrats elected and that's hard when the movement to childproof the world has made Republicans the party of freedom and Democrats the party of poopers."

The most infamous libel in history is the one known as the Blood Libel. This was the medieval lie leveled at Jews in some European countries that accused the Jews of killing Christian children to use their blood to make Passover matzo.

As the author of a book on the history of anti-Semitism (Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism), having taught Jewish history at the college level, and as a committed Jew who has devoted great efforts to combating anti-Semitism, I do not easily compare anything to the Blood Libel.

But perhaps the second greatest libel — and certainly the most widespread — is that America is a racist country that oppresses its minorities — and women. We can call it the American Libel.

Now, I hasten to add that no one is being tortured to death as a result of this libel, as Jews were because of the Blood Libel, and, of course, no communities are being slaughtered as Jews were.

But the American Libel should be regarded as one of the great libels of history.

That America today oppresses minorities and women is as far from the truth as was Jews using Christian blood for matzo. Indeed, no country in the world is so accepting of minorities as fellow citizens as America. A third-generation German of Turkish descent is still regarded by most Germans as Turkish. But a first-generation Turkish — or Nigerian or Chinese — immigrant to America is regarded simply as one more American.

American Jews should be the first to denounce the American Libel. No country in history has ever been as welcoming, accepting and honoring of Jews as America. American Jews are a living refutation of the American Libel.

Did America oppress minorities? Of course it did. But the people who engage in the American Libel claim that America oppresses minorities, and even women, today.

Take, for example, this morally odious statement issued last week by the San Francisco 49ers NFL team: “For more than a year, members of our team have protested the oppression and social injustices still present in our society.”

Or a column by a Muslim writer in the HuffPost: “The oppression they [blacks] face is much greater than the bigotry I [a Muslim] face. It is a racism and oppression rooted in our culture.”

Last year, ESPN’s Paul Finebaum said on-air, “This country has issues, but this country is not oppressing black people.”

After being widely denounced, two days later Finebaum felt it necessary to issue this abject apology: “I could spend the rest of my life trying to talk my way out of it, but I can’t. I blew it. I simply did not have a good grasp of the situation. I know better. I’ve lived in this country. I see what is going on all across the country from North to South, East to West and I have no excuse. … All I can say is that I made a terrible mistake. In trying to express a feeling that I probably — not probably — I had no right to express.”

The headline of a column by Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy: “In America, racial oppression is not ancient history.”

A headline of another Washington Post column: “How blacks, oppressed by white supremacy, can find a path to liberation.”

Such examples are endless. America oppresses blacks, Latinos, women, gays and everyone else who is not a white, male, heterosexual Christian.

It is a great lie. But it is the dominant narrative of the society. And, as lies are the root of evil, this lie must lead to something awful. It has already begun to:

First, vast numbers of nonwhites are being raised to believe that America hates them. This should be considered a form of child abuse.

Second, the charge that America is a land of oppression has utterly cheapened the word “oppression.” The truly oppressed of the world will have to find a new word to express their condition. If blacks and women in America are oppressed, what word shall we use to describe the condition of Christians in Iraq or Egypt? Of gays in Iran? Of women in much of the Muslim world? Of the Untouchables in India? Kurds in Turkey?

But worse is yet to come.

The Jews survived the Blood Libel. But America may not survive the American Libel. While the first libel led to the death of many Jews, the present libel may lead to the death of a civilization. Indeed, the least oppressive ever created.

Australia’s most regressive leader Daniel Andrews’ never ceases to amaze with the social engineering programs and projects he funds, meanwhile leaving the actual business of running the state far behind. But this time he may have outdone himself yesterday announcing that his government would be funding an absurd LGBT project.

Andrews eagerly announcing that his government would be commissioning the creation of gaming app which will have the player in the role of an LGBT person facing perceived homophobia. Think of it as a mobile version of his government’s Safe Schools program, it already has young students role playing being in same sex relationships, now Andrews wants young people to role play being gay on their smartphones.

The gaming app will be developed in partnership with Victoria University and the Victorian AIDS Council, which despite its name that gives the impression it is about sexual health is just another LGBT lobby group. Their homepage immediately asks people to support marriage equality and the focus of its activities is clearly geared towards the LGBT agenda.

The way this gaming app is funded is that the Andrews Government has a Combatting Homophobia initiative. It is a joint program through the state governments arts funding program Creative Victoria and the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Equality Branch. This elaborate funding approach gives you an idea of the layers of bureaucracy in place to fund such an obscene project.

This app should be viewed as insult to the intelligence of Victorians that their government views them apparently as so hateful and bigoted to gay people that they need a government funded gaming app to counter their ingrained homophobia. Most ordinary people when learning about the existence of such app will most likely laugh at its absurdity, that is until they find out they paid for it.

This gaming app will apparently be released in late 2018 which interestingly enough is just in time for the Victorian State Election. Hopefully its release will be a reminder to voters that for the past 4 years they have had a Premier who is more interested in virtue signalling on social justice issues, at the taxpayers’ expense of course, rather than delivering infrastructure for Victoria or controlling Melbourne’s crime wave.

Let’s also hope that Victoria soon has a government which will end this gravy train of funding for vanity projects, indulgences in identity politics and social justice madness. This will have the double effect of saving Victorians some money and getting government’s focus back where it should be.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

The American Psychological Association is generally Left-leaning but it is the world's most prestigious body of academic psychologists. And even they (under the chairmanship of Ulric Neisser) have had to concede a large gap (one SD) in black vs. white average IQ.

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties. The tide turned in 2017, however, with a public vote authorizing homosexual marriage in Australia

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here